Home charging has been covered by some EV sellers. The estimates I had were for 700 to thou without their help,
Reality check on electric cars
- Thread starter Stringfellow Hawk
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, the dealer was lying to you. A tier II Tesla charger, wholesale, runs nearly $500 on its own. Wiring for a minimum 50 amp circuit with breaker using 8/2 G NM cable runs about $2.00 a foot right now and the breaker is about $50.
Matt Dillon
Retardium User
QP!
Verified User
Link to studies and research below. Do i think you can follow those links? Do i think you can read it even if you do? Do i think if you read it you can understand it and won't just go into a fit of denial when you cannot?
The answer is 'no', to all of those. You being the "poorly educated" and all.
-------
Peer-Reviewed Academic Evidence
Several major breakthroughs announced by Chinese research institutions have successfully passed rigorous peer review in top-tier global scientific journals:
- The Ultra-Cold Fluorine Electrolyte Breakthrough (Published in Nature): Researchers from Nankai University and the Shanghai Institute of Space Power Sources published a landmark paper detailing an all-weather hydrofluorocarbon-based electrolyte. Peer review confirmed that this formulation alters ion-transfer chemistry, allowing experimental lithium-metal cells to achieve a massive energy density of 700 Wh/kg while operating efficiently at temperatures as low as -70°C (-94°F). [1, 2, 3]
- The Liquid-Solid Hybrid Cell (Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics): Published studies from the Chinese Academy of Sciences verified a liquid-solid-state lithium cell that retains over 85% capacity after eight hours at -29°F. This was achieved via an AI-driven power management system and modified separators that prevent the electrolyte from freezing and thickening. [1]
- Alternative Chemistries (Sodium-Ion): Peer-reviewed assessments on Chinese sodium-ion cells (such as those being deployed by Changan and JAC) validate that sodium ions move much faster than lithium ions in the cold. Papers confirm stable discharging down to -50°C, positioning them as a viable alternative for cold-weather urban commuters. [1]
2. Commercial Independent Validation & Engineering Reports
When looking at mass-produced batteries from industry giants like CATL and BYD, independent automotive engineering evaluations provide concrete data:
| Battery Technology [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] | Manufacturer Claims | Independent / Engineering Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| CATL Shenxing V2 / Pro (Lithium Iron Phosphate - LFP) | Fast-charges 10% to 98% in 9 minutes at -30°C (-22°F). Adds 410 km of range in 20 minutes at -20°C. | Validated Mechanism: Automotive media analysis confirms CATL achieves this via pulse self-heating and extremely low internal cell resistance (0.25 milliohms), bypassing traditional LFP cold-charging sluggishness. |
| BYD Blade 2.0 (Advanced LFP) | Charges from 20% to 97% in under 12 minutes at -20°C. Retains up to 95% room-temp capacity. | Patent & Structural Reviews: PatSnap and ResearchGate technical dossiers confirm that BYD’s unique cell-to-pack (CTP) structural layout acts as a thermal mass. Combined with integrated smart thermal management, it prevents local hot/cold spots. |
QP!
Verified User
Below is a listing with all citations on how State and the Federal government subsidizes offhsore Oil rigs via setting up a regime that allows the big oil compnaies to create them, milk the profits out of them while significantly under capitalizing any dismantling and clean up, while instead reselling the rig near the end of its useful life to minor companies who will pump every last drop, dsitribute profits and then go bankrupt as the Rig comes to end of life.
@T. A. Gardner will proclaim the tax payers picking up this tab, including massive costs when the well below blows and spews oil into the sea, is not a subsidy. That Big OIl taking the profits while bribing gov't so they can avoid the decommissioning cost and thus forcing that on to the tax payer is not a subsidy, in his view.
------------
Taxpayers face multi-billion dollar liabilities for the decommissioning of aging offshore oil and gas infrastructure due to structural regulatory loopholes and generous tax codes. Globally, the total cost to dismantle and plug thousands of deep-sea oil rigs is estimated at over $210 billion to $300 billion, a massive portion of which is actively shifted onto the public. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The primary mechanics used to channel public funds into decommissioning projects include specific financial structures and policy gaps.
1. Direct Decommissioning Tax Relief
Many jurisdictions explicitly allow oil and gas corporations to claw back public funds through specialized tax codes once a rig stops producing. [1, 2, 3]
2. Regulatory Under-Bonding & "Orphan" Infrastructure
When offshore operating companies go bankrupt, they frequently abandon their infrastructure, turning deep-sea structures into government liabilities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
3. The "Rigs-to-Reefs" Cost Reduction Loophole
Governments allow companies to modify their environmental obligations through programs like Rigs-to-Reefs, which bypasses the costly requirement to completely remove steel structures from the seabed. [1, 2]
4. Direct Corporate Grants and Infrastructure Funding
Some governments issue direct financial packages to prop up offshore zones or clear historical cleanup backlogs under the guise of job preservation. [1, 2]
@T. A. Gardner will proclaim the tax payers picking up this tab, including massive costs when the well below blows and spews oil into the sea, is not a subsidy. That Big OIl taking the profits while bribing gov't so they can avoid the decommissioning cost and thus forcing that on to the tax payer is not a subsidy, in his view.
------------
Taxpayers face multi-billion dollar liabilities for the decommissioning of aging offshore oil and gas infrastructure due to structural regulatory loopholes and generous tax codes. Globally, the total cost to dismantle and plug thousands of deep-sea oil rigs is estimated at over $210 billion to $300 billion, a massive portion of which is actively shifted onto the public. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The primary mechanics used to channel public funds into decommissioning projects include specific financial structures and policy gaps.
1. Direct Decommissioning Tax Relief
Many jurisdictions explicitly allow oil and gas corporations to claw back public funds through specialized tax codes once a rig stops producing. [1, 2, 3]
- Tax Repayments: Companies are entitled to write off asset-removal costs against previous years’ earnings, forcing governments to issue direct refunds. [1, 2, 3]
- Reduced Taxable Profits: Current decommissioning expenditures can be used to dramatically reduce a company's corporate tax liability to zero or negative balances. [1, 2]
- The North Sea Example: The UK National Audit Office previously revealed that taxpayers are on the hook for over $30 billion in decommissioning subsidies via tax relief, occasionally resulting in the state paying out more to oil companies than it collects in fossil fuel revenue. [1]
2. Regulatory Under-Bonding & "Orphan" Infrastructure
When offshore operating companies go bankrupt, they frequently abandon their infrastructure, turning deep-sea structures into government liabilities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Insufficient Collateral: Regulatory bodies require companies to post security bonds to cover future cleanup costs, but these accounts are routinely underfunded. [1]
- The Gulf of Mexico Crisis: A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted that decommissioning overdue infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico could cost $40 billion to $70 billion. However, regulators have collected only $3.5 billion in supplementary bonds, exposing taxpayers to the remaining deficit. [1]
3. The "Rigs-to-Reefs" Cost Reduction Loophole
Governments allow companies to modify their environmental obligations through programs like Rigs-to-Reefs, which bypasses the costly requirement to completely remove steel structures from the seabed. [1, 2]
- Toppling In-Place: Instead of towing the heavy marine platform to shore for recycling, companies simply cut off the top sections and tip the structure onto the seafloor. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- Hidden Subsidies: This method saves oil companies up to 50% of standard decommissioning costs. While companies often split these savings with local governments, the public assumes the permanent long-term legal liability and environmental risk of structural degradation, heavy metal leaching, or maritime navigation hazards. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
4. Direct Corporate Grants and Infrastructure Funding
Some governments issue direct financial packages to prop up offshore zones or clear historical cleanup backlogs under the guise of job preservation. [1, 2]
- Subsidy Diversion: Direct financial grants and public program funds are sometimes funneled to offshore drillers to offset early exploration or site liabilities. [1, 2]
- Public Infrastructure Absorption: Public entities regularly absorb peripheral costs, such as international maritime fees or the construction of deep-water port modifications, which directly reduces the financial burden on private upstream operators. [1, 2]
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Standard accounting method. Not a subsidy.
Standard accounting method. Not a subsidy.
Not a US issue. You are now conflating international government policy with US policy. The same could be done with "renewables" and the subsidies would bury what fossil fuel companies get.
Not a subsidy.
Political policy, not a subsidy.
Not a subsidy. This is an industry practice allowed by government, the objections of anti-oil environmentalists notwithstanding.
Ah! The unnamed evil we have to combat. Not a subsidy if you can't even name the subsidy.
Back to the international vs. national issue. Want to swap such things granted to "renewables" in spades compared to fossil fuel?
Not a subsidy. Government practice in many industries, including mining, renewables, etc.
QP!
Verified User
And above is the ridiculousness of Terry and the lies he tells himself.
Big Oil lobbies gov't to allow for laws and accounting that allow them to pull almost all the profit out these deep sea rigs, and just before they reach the end of their useful life, begin a process of selling the rigs to companies set up and structured to specifically to go bankrupt so the tax payer gets stuck with the clean up bill.
THAT IS A SUBSIDY if that word has any meaning. BIg Oil keeps the profits but passes on the cost to the taxpayers.
Simply saying 'Congress blessed by creating laws and accounting' does not change that. Subsidies are often legal, proper structures.
It would be a simply thing for Congress to pass a law ensuring that the Big Oil company who first builds the rig, has to set aside enough of a bond for its future dismantling. Make them price it in.
Battery EVs make up over 97% of the new cars sold in Norway, a country that gets far colder than Minnesota, and EVERYONE DIED!!! No seriously, no one is dying in Norway because of the switch to EVs. Your posts are nonsense.Buy you an EV and go out driving in the middle of winter in Minnesota then, retard.
Let's let Darwinism take its course.
Figuring out ways to improve the use of chemistry and physics has doubled battery energy density every 10 years. It has been a very consistent, major improvement. Prices have dropped even quicker than that.
Doubling every 10 years...
The jet engine was invented 2,000 years before it came to market... Does it have no use in your world too?
QP!
Verified User
They are both ridiculous and comical cartoon characters on this topic.
@T. A. Gardner has claimed there has been no meaningful in EV technology since the early 1900's that makes it more useable.
He ignores ICE engines existed for ~200 years before finally over taking the Horse and buggy, and ICE remained marginable extreme fringe technology despite the ability to carry fuel around. They finally over took the horse and buggy only due to the build out of roads (gov't) and gas stations. EV's are now finally get there equivalent of early gas station build out in charging station growth across many countries allowing for EV's to achieve a somewhat level playing field with ICE.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Untrue, even a lie. I have stated that EV technology since its introduction in the late 19th century has never been widely popular in a competitive automotive marketplace and that the only way it's gotten as far as it has todais by massive, continuous government subsidy and regulations against alternatives.
.
I can build an entire ICE engine in my garage as you can see. I can't do that with an EV. The complexity, cost of parts--if they're even available--and cost of things like technical manuals and diagnostics is insane. I can also tell you that 50 years from now, that engine can still be rebuilt and run. You are NOT doing that with EV technology that is in use today.
What you are pointing out is totally irrelevant. ICE engines improved dramatically in efficiency since their first introduction. What made them popular was they were easy to maintain and self-repair, their energy source was portable, and they were very efficient. EV's have failed continuously because they are difficult to self-repair, their energy source is fixed, and they are inefficient in many applications. Roads and gas stations (or charging stations) followed adaption, they didn't cause it.
Before gas stations existed, you could buy gasoline at most hardware and general stores in gallon tins. You could transport these as needed where they were needed. That's the problem with EV's. If there isn't a charging station where you need it, your vehicle is worthless. With an ICE vehicle, you can haul fuel to where you need it and even stockpile it there.
Last edited:
QP!
Verified User
I love that you have to lie about what you said prior as that means you know what you said was wrong and bullshit as we discussed the efficiency of the technology.
For the record here is what Terry said prior and you can judge which summary was the correct one :
QP - Terry stated there has been no meaningful change in EV tech from the early 1900's that make EV's more competitive with ICE today.
Terry summary of his prior post - Never said that. Lie. I only spoke of "popularity" and not the technology.
^^^ That is you above Terry claiming there is no meaningful EFFICIENCY gain for an average EV buyer and USER that has occurred since the early 1900's that makes an EV more practical to use today, for them.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
There is far more to this than simply "efficiency." You cannot grasp that apparently. What I pointed out in that video was Leno showing that at that time (1912) there was charging infrastructure all over NYC, and the EV sold well in that market. Why it failed is it didn't work outside that urban environment for virtually anyone and ICE vehicles did. Since ICE vehicles also worked in that environment, they won in the marketplace and EV's died off.I love that you have to lie about what you said prior as that means you know what you said was wrong and bullshit as we discussed the efficiency of the technology.
For the record here is what Terry said prior and you can judge which summary was the correct one :
QP - Terry stated there has been no meaningful change in EV tech from the early 1900's that make EV's more competitive with ICE today.
Terry summary of his prior post - Never said that. Lie. I only spoke of "popularity" and not the technology.
^^^ That is you above Terry claiming there is no meaningful EFFICIENCY gain for an average EV buyer and USER that has occurred since the early 1900's that makes an EV more practical to use today, for them.
QP!
Verified User
True, and yet ICE engines still DID NOT compete with horse and buggy in any meaningful way for the first 200 years after their invention.
It took the advent of roads and gas stations to make them finally over come the horse and buggy.
True, and yet ICE engines still DID NOT compete with horse and buggy in any meaningful way for the first 200 years after their invention.
It took the advent of roads and gas stations to make them finally over come the horse and buggy.
True, and that was the same issue for ICE once roads and gas stations came in.
Most people did not want to always haul ICE fuel due to the massive danger carrying it all the time would pose to them and their families.
Could you carry a jerry can of fuel on every trip... yes. Was that availability something that allowed ICE to over come the horse and buggy? NO, as that option existed for almost 200 years and it was ONLY once roads and gas stations came int, that got rid of htat massively dangerous requirement that ICE finally passed the horse and buggy.
Irreverent to 99% of daily drivers.
You create this entire FALSE framework where you push two failed positions and here is why they fail:
- 99%+ oft daily drivers are not making a purchase choices based on being able to haul around ICE fuel and stockpile it in case they cannot get fuel from a gas station. That consideration is irrelevant to them
- Conversely as you also push, 99% of EV's buyers do not care that you can selectively find very rural routes through rural states, where you select township of 50 people to make your point EV's cannot go everywhere. EV range and charger accessibility is optimized for 99%+ of daily drivers, daily commutes which are home/work/errands around town and 3-5 hour weekend drive trips.
QP!
Verified User
"charging infrastructure all over NYC, where EV sold well in that market... but no charging infrastructure outside that market with little to no visibility on that due to grid, cost and population density outside NYC... So it is easy to see now why it failed then but is succeeding now as those dynamics have all changed. It was the same for ICE for 200+ versus the horse and buggy. Lack of gas station infrastructure and good roads meant ICE could not compete, despite the portability of their fuel, but after 200 years those dynamics changed and ICE over took the Horse and buggy. "
^ I rewrote you post above for full accuracy
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Due mainly to cost. Up to Ford introducing the affordable Model T, automobiles were an expensive and often unaffordable option.
No, the introduction of an affordable alternative was. Roads existed prior to the automobile.
Gas stations occurred long after ICE vehicles started to get popular. They were simply more efficient than buying your gasoline in tins at a hardware or general store.
Your grasp of the concept of safety in historical terms is totally lacking here.
Most people use their vehicle(s) for more than a "daily driver." If you can only have one vehicle, and you need that vehicle on occasion, say once a week or a few times a month, to do something like pull your travel trailer somewhere or go off roading, or whatever, you choose a vehicle that can do ALL of those things even if it is less efficient than choosing one that is best for your daily drive.
That's why many EV's sell as second cars. People who can afford more than one vehicle get a daily driver, maybe an EV, and then have a massive 4 x 4 dually that can pull their fifth wheel to some 'campground' or another in some remote rural area on a long weekend. They see the EV as efficient for their daily drive but worthless for other uses. So, they get multiple vehicles.
QP!
Verified User
Cost was a big part of the issue but moreso it was lack of roads and gas stations.
Once again the lie you trying to tell as if portability of ICE fuel was the key is simply not true. At no point in the first 200 years, when you could carry ICE fuel was it a threat to the horse and buggy and that was due to society not having connected infrastracture to properly allow the automobiles to drive and refuel, on journies.
Buying gasoline at hardware stores WAS NEVER going to allow ICE to over come the horse and buggy. NEVER.
It was as limiting as the lack of EV charging stations prior to Tesla.
You are simply wrong and stupid pushing this view that 'gas stations and roads were not the key' when there is so much material i have cited prior saying just that.... while you push this idiocy that ICE was always on a path to out compete Horse and buggies due to people being able to get gas at a hardware store.
False. But you knowledge and common sense is.
Yes and EV's currently can suit 99% of people for ALL their needs.
Right. We have gone here before and this is BY FAR one of your most STUPID arguments.
The argument you push that "I Terry can name some areas where a person with a single car that is an EV cannot adequately do and thus EV's as a segment fail because people with one car need a car that do everything'.
So by your logic above, Econo box cars, convertibles, pick up trucks, etc, all also, like EV's are not viable since ALL OF THEM have certain areas we can cherry pick where they are not suited if you only have 1 vehicle.
It is a painfully stupid argument Terry.
The person who has one car that is an ICE econo box, a pick up truck, a convertible has all sorts of things they cannot do with those vehicles but if it serves 99%+ of what they need the vehicle for they buy it.
You trying to push that EV's as s segment are not viable because you can cherry pick these less than 1% usage examples just makes you stupid.
